I would see ot as tjem treating the people who had already gone out of theirway to dinner. Badically, if you want to do sometjing nice foreople tje homeless are great and I encourage it but if people you know have already been cost time and money by the whole thing, start with tjem?

The happy couple wouldn't have to be there, wouldn't have to be a "reception" but a nice nice meal.

But they hadn't gone out of their way. The wedding was 40 days out, not the next day. It's not like the guests were all huddled in front of the church door waiting and then found out. And if I were on the groom's side, which half of the guests likely were, no way would I want to hop a plane or drive several hours to go have a hideously tense meal with people I hope I never see again- and I'm guessing the bride's side would feel the same way.

« Last Edit: September 25, 2013, 02:13:58 PM by Winterlight »

Logged

If wisdom’s ways you wisely seek,Five things observe with care,To whom you speak,Of whom you speak,And how, and when, and where.Caroline Lake Ingalls

I think it's nice if you can afford it. I, personally, don't know many people who could. They'd WANT to, but practically speaking, there's no way a lot of people could afford to forfeit that money. That said, I think it's wonderful that these particular people could afford to do something so nice. I don't know that it makes them "classy." Generous, yes.

It was non-refundable. So either you could afford it or you shouldn't have planned a more lavish wedding than you could afford.

I re-read the article and I didn't see where it said it was non-refundable. It said they had already paid for it, but 40 days out, I think they most they would lose would be whatever deposit they had made. Of course, we don't know the terms of their contract. They might get nothing back, but we don't know that. I am going by what my experience in these kinds of things is.

The more time I spend on eHell, the more strongly I feel that wedding celebrations should be abolished / forbidden. So much potential for disaster / contention / bad feeling / bitter quarrelling. Let it just be a brief, totally dull official function with the couple, the officiant / registrar, and the one or two necessary witnesses.

LOL, well I will be married exactly 4 weeks tomorrow and that's exactly what my husband and I did! We went to a town a couple of hours away from our home city, got married and then spent a few days at the beach. There were still hurt feelings from a few people because we didn't invite them. We didn't invite anybody!

I think it's nice if you can afford it. I, personally, don't know many people who could. They'd WANT to, but practically speaking, there's no way a lot of people could afford to forfeit that money. That said, I think it's wonderful that these particular people could afford to do something so nice. I don't know that it makes them "classy." Generous, yes.

It was non-refundable. So either you could afford it or you shouldn't have planned a more lavish wedding than you could afford.

I re-read the article and I didn't see where it said it was non-refundable. It said they had already paid for it, but 40 days out, I think they most they would lose would be whatever deposit they had made. Of course, we don't know the terms of their contract. They might get nothing back, but we don't know that. I am going by what my experience in these kinds of things is.

Even if it was refundable. A wedding reception is not a necessity. If you have the money to pay for a fancy wedding reception you could equally afford to give the money to charity instead. I don't really see how you can afford one but not the other. It's simply deciding what to do with your disposable income.

Another thing I like about it is that it gave the family perspective: they are upset, they are out a bunch of money, they are stressed and embarrassed.. .but by getting involved with a local charity which helps the homeless, they see how much worse off so many others are and it puts their own problems into perspective. That is so much better than wallowing in the unhappiness.

Someone remarked earlier in the thread that it wasn't the best way to address hunger. Well, undoubtedly not, but it sure is a lot better than what most people do (which is nothing). It gave some people a lovely evening; that doesn't give them jobs, homes, or stability, but it is something. There are charities to help teenagers in shelters to go to the prom, and I think this was like that. Sometimes it is good to give someone just a night off from being poor and homeless and let them enjoy some pleasure.

The more time I spend on eHell, the more strongly I feel that wedding celebrations should be abolished / forbidden. So much potential for disaster / contention / bad feeling / bitter quarrelling. Let it just be a brief, totally dull official function with the couple, the officiant / registrar, and the one or two necessary witnesses.

LOL, well I will be married exactly 4 weeks tomorrow and that's exactly what my husband and I did! We went to a town a couple of hours away from our home city, got married and then spent a few days at the beach. There were still hurt feelings from a few people because we didn't invite them. We didn't invite anybody!

"That's the way to do it !", as they say in my country. My ideal wedding, is that told of by the British author Henry Williamson, in one of his series of thinly-disguised autobiographical novels. The hero gets married in the early 1920s -- the couple are completely broke, and most relations on both sides, disapprove of their marrying. They do the deed at a registry office -- those present are the registrar, the couple, and as witnesses the groom's mother (who is OK with the marriage) and her neighbour. For the "wedding breakfast", the "cast" (minus the registrar) go to the Great Western Railway's London terminus, and in the refreshment room there, toast the happy couple over cups of nasty tea, and horrible buns (the Great Western Railway was infamous for the ghastly food and drink which it sold to travellers). The bridal pair then embark on the overnight train to the far west of England (in uncomfortable third-class sitting-up accommodation), where they are going to live in highly Spartan style, and where the hero will write the Great Novel about the First World War, in which he has lately taken part. How weddings ought to be...

I think it's nice if you can afford it. I, personally, don't know many people who could. They'd WANT to, but practically speaking, there's no way a lot of people could afford to forfeit that money. That said, I think it's wonderful that these particular people could afford to do something so nice. I don't know that it makes them "classy." Generous, yes.

It was non-refundable. So either you could afford it or you shouldn't have planned a more lavish wedding than you could afford.

I re-read the article and I didn't see where it said it was non-refundable. It said they had already paid for it, but 40 days out, I think they most they would lose would be whatever deposit they had made. Of course, we don't know the terms of their contract. They might get nothing back, but we don't know that. I am going by what my experience in these kinds of things is.

I might have $ to spend on a wedding reception. I don't have $--not one dime--to *waste* by simply ceding it to a caterer in return for absolutely nothing.

So there's nothing at all wrong with trying to get as much money back from the caterer as you possibly can.

It's also possible that what they did was spent LESS than the original contract amount. They may have been out the deposit, but they might have been able to make a perfectly nice--though not as elaborate (read: less $)--evening by using up the deposit and maybe spending a little extra.

But even so--there is nothing wrong in the least with wanting to get as much of your money back into your own pocket as possible when you are going to get nothing of value in return.

(the deposit buys something of value, which is the right to reserve that date at the catering hall; that's why it's generally unrefundable)

Did I miss it or is everyone forgetting the third, and probably most common option. That is, to simply cancel the reception totally and forfeit the money. In other words, instead of party without wedding or party for homeless, the most likely choice for couples in this situation is no party at all. Which, for the guests, comes out the exact same way as party for the homeless. No party, plane tickets that can't be canceled, gifts that have to be returned, etc.

It's definitely a case of lemonade from lemons.

This. The wedding was cancelled. Full stop.

Later that evening, people who would have gone hungry were fed. That just cannot be a bad thing in my head.

Definitely not a bad thing.

But your point underlines mine, which is that the wedding was cancelled (which is the etiquette issue), and the feeding of the homeless was not an *etiquette* issue.

I can't believe anyone could possibly see anything bad in this. I really can't. What on earth is the world coming to when a couple's wedding is *cancelled*, the parents do something *amazing* for less fortunate people off the back of it, and other people are saying "But what about my dinner?!"

Someone remarked earlier in the thread that it wasn't the best way to address hunger. Well, undoubtedly not, but it sure is a lot better than what most people do (which is nothing). It gave some people a lovely evening; that doesn't give them jobs, homes, or stability, but it is something. There are charities to help teenagers in shelters to go to the prom, and I think this was like that. Sometimes it is good to give someone just a night off from being poor and homeless and let them enjoy some pleasure.

Hi drunken housewife. not sure if you meant my earlier remarks. If so, I thought the family's decision to turn the cancelled wedding reception into an event for the homeless was a lovely thing to do. Hiring the children's entertainers was especially kind and thoughtful.

I was less enthusiastic about the family's proposal to do the same thing as a planned annual event in future. Not sure how much a reception like that would cost for 200 people? A fair chunk of change? So I was questioning whether throwing a $$$ party for 200 people was the best way to help out, no matter how many good memories were created.

It is still generous and I'm sure it'll be appreciated. Their money, their choice, of course.

& this part isn't really an etiquette question so sorry for going OT - just wanted to clarify.

On the issue of those originally invited to a now cancelled wedding being somehow righteously peeved because someone else gets to eat wedding cake instead - mind boggles.

I volunteer on a semi regular basis for a womens shelter, serving breakfast, lunch, or dinner in the kitchen. 90% of the time, the food that is used to serve these women, is made from the stores of the shelter. The bulk food is either purchased from warehouse stores or donated by local wholesalers on a intermittent basis. The cook in charge has to come up with ways to make the food stretch and is not always the most imaginative about things.

The other 10% of the time, the food comes from groups or individuals to bring in food to either serve a specific meal or to just stock the fridge and freezer so that the cook does not have to dip into the shelter's stock of food.

An annual dinner/meal such as this, may not address the underlying issues regarding hunger and homelessness. However, it does bring notice to the charity as well as usually leave enough extra food to help the kitchen get by for quite some time. Any food left is donated to the shelter. This year it cost $$$ because the family was already out that money. However, next year, it may not cost any money other than what people spend on making food. The venue could be donated next year or they could have it at the shelter location. I took away that they were going to make this an annual charitable act. Not that it would necessarily cost them $$$ to do it each year.

I also think there's a lot of intangible value in being treated like a human being, even if it's just an evening. It might not satisfy material needs, but I've seen (both personally and via media) how being treated like a person, when you're used to something far different, can change someone's life for the better.

I haven't read the article, but I understand that the Bride's family had paid for the wedding, and the Groom was the one who backed out? Is that right?

If so, I think the Bride's family were fine, to do whatever they wanted with the food and venue.

However, if this situation had been different - for example, if the Groom had chipped in for some of the wedding costs, or the Bride was the one who broke off the relationship, then I think the Bride's family would have been rude for unilaterally deciding to use the food and venue towards a charity event of their choice.

I would see ot as tjem treating the people who had already gone out of theirway to dinner. Badically, if you want to do sometjing nice foreople tje homeless are great and I encourage it but if people you know have already been cost time and money by the whole thing, start with tjem?

The happy couple wouldn't have to be there, wouldn't have to be a "reception" but a nice nice meal.

For all we know, family members that had non-refundable tickets were hosted - just not at the reception venue. They could have gone out to a restaurant or eaten a home cooked meal.

If I had found out 40 days in advance that the wedding was cancelled, I would not expect to be hosted at a reception for said non-event. Even if I had non-refundable tickets. I would, if necessary, replan my trip as at best a holiday to a different location, and at worst, a time to try and cheer up a friend who has just lost his/her anticipated life companion.

I can imagine very few events I would less want to attend than a mock-reception for a wedding that didn't happen. I would not in the least feel "screwed over" by hearing that the reception was cancelled, since the main event was no longer on the card. In fact, if I were told it was still scheduled, I might start to question my friend's mental state, and whether s/he was turning into Miss Havisham.

Logged

My cousin's memoir of love and loneliness while raising a child with multiple disabilities will be out on Amazon soon! Know the Night, by Maria Mutch, has been called "full of hope, light, and companionship for surviving the small hours of the night."